Cheap HDMI cables are just as good... Don't waste your money.

[BMW_TT]

firefold.com > *

[ScotyH]

120Hz doesn't goes thru the cable. That's a conversion that occurs in the display device. BUT

Quality does matter... most people just don't have the caliber of equipment to reveal the difference.

Most people think that it's "snake oil"..... just like most people think that when you buy a BMW you're "paying for the name".

[ZJP]

I buy all my HDMI cables from eBay.

[toughluck]

I used to buy Monster cable when I was younger, but after knowing more, I will never touch that brand again. Stay clear of the "Beats by Dr. Dre Headphones" from Monster, too.

(a little off topic), but read this article from engadget...

Monster-cable-still-evil-will-allow-monster-mini-golf-to-exist

Direct link Monster Mini Golf

[miktrebla09]

Originally Posted by bwalshy99

if you have an expensive tv that refreshes at 120Hz and you buy an HDMI cable that is not capable of 120Hz than you just wasted on that money on a big fancy tv. I'm not saying you need to buy particular brands but certain specs of the cables are important such as the frequency and what materials are used.

Nice...you're exactly the type of consumer Monster preys on.

As someone else mentioned in this thread, 120hz processing is strictly processed by your TV and NOT the hdmi source.

taken from avsforum:

"1) There is no such thing as 120Hz rated cables.
2) Even if there was your HDTV only accepts 24p & 60p over HDMI. While it displays at 120Hz it still only accepts a 24Hz or 60Hz signal. There are no consumer grade HDTV with a 120p input. Period.

3) Even if there were 120Hz cables (there aren't) and your HDTV accepted 120p input (it doesn't) no BD player has 120Hz (120p) output. Since content on the disc is 24p there is no reason to output it as 120p. It is output as 24p (using less bandwidth than 60p) and your HDTV applies a 5:5 pulldown to 120Hz.

Someday there may be sources (PS4, xbox 720) with an 120Hz output and someday there may be HDTV with 120p input but even those would just need an HDMI cable.
"

[J!M]

I just bought a cheap HDMI cable yesterday to replace an HDMI that came with one of my devices.

The cable I'm replacing seems to have a problem that it doesn't make a solid connection in the hdmi port, so the picture works fine for a while, and then stops working if the temperature changes, or it moves at all.

As a result, I went one step above the cheapest cheap cables hoping that the connector will be a bit better. My other 2 cheap HDMI cables have always worked fine for me.

[ZBMW]

If anyone here is interested in some very good testing of HDMI cables Audioholics.com just posted their results on their front page. It pretty well blows apart that 120 mhz capable cable, as did others posters here.
Anyone who plans to make some long runs to sets previously supplied by RG6 cable should read it.

[JJM335]

Originally Posted by bwalshy99

explain otherwise if you know better...

I am a video network engineer, so I guess I do know better. :-)

Seriously, the bandwidth of HD is the same regardless of the 120Hz hoopla...about 1.2Gb/s for anyone interested. The 120Hz function resides in the TV itself and has nothing to do with the HDMI cable or with encoding of the HD video for that matter.

Back on topic, a cheap HDMI cable is just as good as the most expensive one you can find...with one exception. Someone pointed out distance. So, if you have a very long cable run (like more that 50') there may be some signal degradation that could result in reduced picture quality (most likely tiling and macroblocking from bit errors and lost MPEG video packets).

[Inzane]

Ok, so HDMI cables have been beat to death here already.

What about:
- component cables
- RCA/composite audio & video cables
- speaker wire
- subwoofer cable

Does the same apply to all those as well, or is there some notable variance in "quality" in some cases?
(ps - I have never bought any Monster Cable anything)

[Hedges]

Interesting, very informative!

[JJM335]

Originally Posted by Inzane

Ok, so HDMI cables have been beat to death here already.

What about:
- component cables
- RCA/composite audio & video cables
- speaker wire
- subwoofer cable

Does the same apply to all those as well, or is there some notable variance in "quality" in some cases?
(ps - I have never bought any Monster Cable anything)

As a general rule, cable is cable. However, analog signals like component, composite, amplifier output (speaker wire), ect. can benefit from higher quality cable. Very few people in very few instances would be able to tell any difference, though.

[darkalley]

Originally Posted by ZBMW

If anyone here is interested in some very good testing of HDMI cables Audioholics.com just posted their results on their front page. It pretty well blows apart that 120 mhz capable cable, as did others posters here.
Anyone who plans to make some long runs to sets previously supplied by RG6 cable should read it.

Anybody familiar with HDMI will know that the bandwidth demand placed upon the cable is a function of the bitrate flowing through that cable. The bitrate, in turn, is a function of the resolution, frame rate, and color depth of the picture. The argument here is obvious enough: 120Hz signal has double the frame rate of 60Hz signal, and therefore needs double the bandwidth. That seems simple and straightforward enough, and it would be true, but for one thing: It's NOT. It simply makes a critical, incorrect, unstated assumption.

The incorrect assumption here is that the new doubled refresh rate is transmitted over the cable. It's not. Your cable needs to handle the frame rate which passes through the cable, but it doesn't care what the frame rate at any other point in the process is. If the cable is carrying a 60 Hz frame rate, and the display doubles that to 120 Hz to refresh the screen twice as often, your cable only "sees" 60, not 120. The bandwidth demand placed on the cable has to do with the signal coming from the source and into the display--what the display may do with that signal internally, after it has passed through the cable, has nothing to do with the load on the cable. Nobody feeds video at 120 Hz, because it doesn't make any sense to do so--when the original content is not recorded at 120 frames per second, there's no gain to be had in sending each frame multiple times to the display, and it would make the sending and receiving chipsets costlier while making the whole interface less reliable due to the increased bandwidth demand placed on the cable. In fact, most (perhaps all) of the "120 Hertz" displays on the market cannot and will not accept an input signal with a 120 Hertz frame rate. Read that last sentence twice if you're still confused.

Whether your display's internal refresh rate is 120 Hertz or some other rate, the signals coming in are running at frame rates determined by the sources of those signals. This typically means 30 Hertz for interlaced formats like 1080i, 60 Hertz for progressive formats like 720p or 480p, or 24 Hertz for certain players that support 1080p/24. Those signal frame rates, not your display's internal refresh rate, are what your cable must handle.

[skierman64]

Originally Posted by Inzane

Ok, so HDMI cables have been beat to death here already.

What about:
- component cables
- RCA/composite audio & video cables
- speaker wire
- subwoofer cable

Does the same apply to all those as well, or is there some notable variance in "quality" in some cases?
(ps - I have never bought any Monster Cable anything)

The type of wire does effect analog signals going through the wire. The 4 items you mention above are usually analog and therefore will be effected the quality of wire/cable.

Originally Posted by darkalley

Anybody familiar with HDMI will know that the bandwidth demand placed upon the cable is a function of the bitrate flowing through that cable. The bitrate, in turn, is a function of the resolution, frame rate, and color depth of the picture. The argument here is obvious enough: 120Hz signal has double the frame rate of 60Hz signal, and therefore needs double the bandwidth. That seems simple and straightforward enough, and it would be true, but for one thing: It's NOT. It simply makes a critical, incorrect, unstated assumption.

The incorrect assumption here is that the new doubled refresh rate is transmitted over the cable. It's not. Your cable needs to handle the frame rate which passes through the cable, but it doesn't care what the frame rate at any other point in the process is. If the cable is carrying a 60 Hz frame rate, and the display doubles that to 120 Hz to refresh the screen twice as often, your cable only "sees" 60, not 120. The bandwidth demand placed on the cable has to do with the signal coming from the source and into the display--what the display may do with that signal internally, after it has passed through the cable, has nothing to do with the load on the cable. Nobody feeds video at 120 Hz, because it doesn't make any sense to do so--when the original content is not recorded at 120 frames per second, there's no gain to be had in sending each frame multiple times to the display, and it would make the sending and receiving chipsets costlier while making the whole interface less reliable due to the increased bandwidth demand placed on the cable. In fact, most (perhaps all) of the "120 Hertz" displays on the market cannot and will not accept an input signal with a 120 Hertz frame rate. Read that last sentence twice if you're still confused.

Whether your display's internal refresh rate is 120 Hertz or some other rate, the signals coming in are running at frame rates determined by the sources of those signals. This typically means 30 Hertz for interlaced formats like 1080i, 60 Hertz for progressive formats like 720p or 480p, or 24 Hertz for certain players that support 1080p/24. Those signal frame rates, not your display's internal refresh rate, are what your cable must handle.

Great explanation. Thanks.